Re: [mpls] Review and Consensus call on text from the MPLS Open DT on in-stack indicators
gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com Fri, 06 August 2021 22:22 UTC
Return-Path: <gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D93973A1AF7; Fri, 6 Aug 2021 15:22:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.894
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.894 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lJv00UQ5AlUJ; Fri, 6 Aug 2021 15:22:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxus.zteusa.com (mxus.zteusa.com [4.14.134.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0CA93A1AF2; Fri, 6 Aug 2021 15:22:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse-us.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.36.11.29]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id F3DE99FA8F76022B37FB; Sat, 7 Aug 2021 06:22:17 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mgapp02.zte.com.cn ([10.36.9.143]) by mse-us.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 176MMD9l099709; Sat, 7 Aug 2021 06:22:13 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com)
Received: from mapi (mgapp02[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid81; Sat, 7 Aug 2021 06:22:12 +0800 (CST)
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2021 06:22:12 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afa610db614ab7eb5d0
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202108070622129564929@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <1cfaeafc-7d2c-7e04-c6e2-767feb6e8364@pi.nu>
References: 1cfaeafc-7d2c-7e04-c6e2-767feb6e8364@pi.nu
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com
To: loa@pi.nu
Cc: mpls@ietf.org, pals-chairs@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, detnet-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-us.zte.com.cn 176MMD9l099709
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/m9IME3k2lgJS1OD51xcoev99S2c>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Review and Consensus call on text from the MPLS Open DT on in-stack indicators
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2021 22:22:27 -0000
Hi Loa, many thanks to all who contributed to the text. I have a suggestion and a comment to the following sentence: GAL/GACH will only be an OAM or instrumentation tool and will not be used to carry meta-data with user-traffic. As I understand how GAL/G-ACh (and ACH in PWs) have been used, I think that by OAM, we mean active OAM (per RFC 7799 classification of OAM measurement methods). I believe that it would be helpful to explicitly refer here to the active OAM and differentiate from, for example, IAOM, which is classified as a hybrid OAM method. And to my comment. In PWs, using GAL is optional in PWs, MPLS-TP, and non-MPLS-TP (RFC 6423), and ACH can be used without GAL. It has been understood that all G-ACh channel types are also applicable to PW ACH (and vice versa). Let us be mindful of that when discussing the future use of GAL/G-ACh. Regards, Greg Mirsky Sr. Standardization Expert 预研标准部/有线研究院/有线产品经营部 Standard Preresearch Dept./Wireline Product R&D Institute/Wireline Product Operation Division E: gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com www.zte.com.cn Original Mail Sender: LoaAndersson To: mpls@ietf.org; CC: pals-chairs@ietf.org;mpls-chairs@ietf.org;DetNet Chairs; Date: 2021/08/05 07:52 Subject: [mpls] Review and Consensus call on text from the MPLS Open DT on in-stack indicators Working Group, MPLS Open DT, The week before IETF 111 the Open DT met and agreed upon a text on "indicators". The terminology we use is that somewhere in the label stack there is an indicator tell the processing node that a specific packet needs a certain set of Forwarding Actions, for example some iOAM action might be required. To support the forwarding action there is often ancillary data with the packet. The text the DT produced is about the indicators, a companion text on ancillary data will follow. The text was discussed in the Joint meeting and reported to the MPLS working group at IETF 111. The Open DT itself can only propose, the text is therefore now sent out to the working group for review and consensus call. The proposed text is found at: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/mpls/wiki/2021-07-22-agenda Please review the proposed text and comment on the MPLS wg mailing list (mpls@ietf.org). We plan to keep the consensus call open until 2021-08-20. /Loa Open DT Co-ordinator / MPLS wg co-chair -- Loa Andersson email: loa@pi.nu Senior MPLS Expert loa.pi.nu@gmail.com Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64 _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list mpls@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
- [mpls] Review and Consensus call on text from the… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] Review and Consensus call on text from… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [mpls] Review and Consensus call on text from… Kireeti Kompella
- Re: [mpls] Review and Consensus call on text from… Haoyu Song
- Re: [mpls] Review and Consensus call on text from… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [mpls] Review and Consensus call on text from… Haoyu Song
- Re: [mpls] Review and Consensus call on text from… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [mpls] Review and Consensus call on text from… Haoyu Song
- Re: [mpls] Review and Consensus call on text from… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [mpls] Review and Consensus call on text from… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] Review and Consensus call on text from… bruno.decraene
- Re: [mpls] Review and Consensus call on text from… Rakesh Gandhi
- Re: [mpls] Review and Consensus call on text from… tom petch
- Re: [mpls] Review and Consensus call on text from… gregory.mirsky
- Re: [mpls] Review and Consensus call on text from… gregory.mirsky
- Re: [mpls] Review and Consensus call on text from… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [mpls] Review and Consensus call on text from… Stewart Bryant